What do you avid golfers really want?

[John Gosselin]

Could this be true? You guys would rather play a course with well maintained bunkers than an interesting layout with unmaintained bunkers? What does well maintained mean? I bet to the people surveyed it meant green and lush for the fairways and bunkers that are raked daily.

Signed...Confused dirt farmer in Philadelphia

From Golf Digest Survey
"Where are your facility resources invested?
If your answer emphasizes the maintenance budget and other means to better golf course conditions, you may be on the right track toward attracting and retaining golfers. According to a recent Golf Digest survey (PPT), for core golfers – those who play 8-24 rounds per year – and avid golfers – 25 or more rounds per year – the top factor in driving golfer satisfaction is not necessarily how one plays, but the course conditions where one plays. More specifically, respondents ranked well-maintained greens and bunkers as the highest factor driving their enjoyment of the game of golf and well-maintained fairways and tees as second highest.

 
The survey also showed that enjoyment comes more from conditioning than challenge. Golfers indicated (by a nearly 9 to 1 ratio) that they would prefer to play a course that is in very good condition but not as challenging, as opposed to a course that is in not good condition but is very challenging. Golfers also indicated they would be willing to pay 25 percent more in green fees for a “better conditioned golf course” over a “better designed golf course.”

If customer satisfaction is a goal at your golf facility, investing resources in enhancing course conditions and paying heed to the expertise of the golf course superintendents is the right choice."

Source: Golf Digest.
http://www.gcsaa.org/leaderboard/2006/marapr/1content.asp

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't have time to answer in detail, but this IS a well known fact among golf operators.  Naturally, I try to convince them to spend the extra million they might use on a signature designer to install more drainage, irrigation, or anything else that will help them improve maintenance conditions!

[mike_malone]

 John,

   It certainly is important to nail down what "well maintained" means. Since there are so few examples of well maintained but not lush courses the only well maintained courses appear lush. We seem to have given up on the idea that avid golfers appreciate drier maintenance.

    Brown grass in August doesn't appear bad to me but a lack of grass on the greens in the same month does.


    It seems to me that the avid golfers who travel overseas and play those firm and fast conditions don't perceive the courses there as badly maintained.


     We need to educate our avid golfers that nonlush conditioning is "well mantained" .

[John Kavanaugh]

Mayday,

I meet alot of idiots but I have yet to meet one that likes to hit a shot with mud on their ball...Everybody I know loves roll..Who are these people you all talk about that prefer for their clubs to be soft.

[redanman]

I'll speak not for myself, but for the guys and gals that I meet everywhere who don't really care about architectural features.

Green, not brown
Soft enough greens to make the ball "back up"
"Fast" but not "too fast" (no trickle) greens
Beautiful white bunkers, neat, trimmed and well-raked
Beautiful water features (lakes, ponds)
Beautiful tree-lined holes

This will satisfy 85-90% of regular golfers at least.

[mike_malone]

 John,

 As to not wanting a mudball , I can confirm that;we had that problem last year.

   But why is it that so many greenkeepers are pushed to go to the edge of turf health to get it green enough to quiet the players?

   I think John wants to know "Do avid golfers define well maintained as lush or not?" I hope not but think they prefer lush.

[Richard Muldoon]

I would put this down to the Augusta factor, especially this side of the pond.
Augusta basically signals the start of the golf season(especially for the 8-24 rounds of golfers) and you hear so many people say how much they love watching Augusta because the course is so pretty.
Also because it is televised live over here in the evening people watch it more than the few European events that are broadcast during the middle of the day when people are busy doing other things.
All this I think acclimatises the ocassional golfer into thinking this is how all golf courses should be.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

 As to not wanting a mudball , I can confirm that;we had that problem last year.

   But why is it that so many greenkeepers are pushed to go to the edge of turf health to get it green enough to quiet the players?

   I think John wants to know "Do avid golfers define well maintained as lush or not?" I hope not but think they prefer lush.

Last year was one hell of a bitch...we can only pray not to go through that again.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Mayday,

I meet alot of idiots but I have yet to meet one that likes to hit a shot with mud on their ball...Everybody I know loves roll..Who are these people you all talk about that prefer for their clubs to be soft.

Believe me, they are out here. I break it down into two categories of individual. The softie, prefers predictable consistent, everything. While the hard ass gets off on the bounce, the roll, & the sport-like outcomes.

It isn't always necessarily a so-called golfer who has to be apeased. In the municipal arena sometimes it's someone who knows little to nothing about golf, and just wants a pretty shade of dark green. Sad but true.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I hate it hat conditioning is so imortant to me,  Last year my club lost grass by  the acre, here in metro DC.  Lots of clubs did.  If the course would have been in Britain, I wouldn't have thought anything about it.  I argue that conditioning should not be so important, but in reality, for me, it is.

it didn't stop me from playing, but I quietly grumbled.

[Mark Arata]

I was out in Arizona on a trip with my wife, who is a meeting planner. Her group asked me to recommend some golf courses in the area. I recommened Talking Stick, Apache Stronghold (I had just played it and it was in decent shape (2004), and, because they were staying close by, the Arizona Biltmore....

Anyone want to guess what the groups favorite was, hands down? (hint, it wasnt the first 2!)

All most recreational golfers care about are the conditions and the "augusta factor". I think all of them would rather play (insert perfectly conditioned Fazio resort course here) than any of the favorites listed here on a regular basis.

[mike_malone]

 Tommy,


     You should expect grass ; but not necessarily green. Is it really healthy for people to get those botox shots to look better?

   Mark,

      I think we have given up on the casual golfer, but John's question is about the avid one. Are they addicted to glitz also?

[Mickey Boland]

Mayday,

I meet alot of idiots but I have yet to meet one that likes to hit a shot with mud on their ball...Everybody I know loves roll..Who are these people you all talk about that prefer for their clubs to be soft.

My ongoing pet peeve with my course.  We haven't had an inch of rain in almost three months, and about 2/3rds of my shots wind up having mud on them when I reach them.  I have talked to everybody I can think of at my club about this issue, and it is always blamed on "sprinkler" problems.  I've asked them to bring in a "sprinkler" expert to fix the problem, but to no avail yet.  Seems the older members like the "green" look, and I've made the same argument that it seems to me they would like an extra 10 or 20 yards of roll more than the mud.  Again, to no avail.  If anybody has any suggestions, I would be happy to hear them.

[David Ober]

The things I look for and that give me pleasure with regard to conditioning:

FLAT, and FIRM tee boxes

Greens that roll anwhere from 8 to 13 but that are TRUE (firmness is not factor)

NO FRICKIN MUD ON MY BALL IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER WHEN I TEE OFF AT 9 FRICKIN' THIRTY IN THE MORNING!!!

[SL_Solow]

No one should be surprised by the results of a Gof Digest survey; just look at the ratings in their places to play books which consist of a compilation of ratings from course patrons.  The toughest part for a green keeper is that the typical player wants wall to wall green (hence a lot of water) but very fast greens (low cuts, high stress).  Not a recipe for great golf, healthy turf, or job security

[John Gosselin]

My point for starting this thread was to point out what most of you already know and that is that ultimately the customer will dictate the end product. Your super is only going to go so far or as far as the members or owners will let them in achieving firm and fast.

Tom Paul has it right when he talks of a grass roots campaign based on playability. That campaign needs to be lead by avid golfers and supported by industry professionals.

[TEPaul]

JohnG:

I really do feel that firm and fast "playability" will win out in the end. It is definitely never going to win out everywhere but in ten years I'll bet we'll have  a couple hundred really good golf course that will be into it consistently.

But getting there with even the "playability" is not easy at first. I think you have to really really communicate with memberships (either directly or by letter) and tell them EXACTLY what it plays like and even where. Good players figure it out pretty quick but handicappers, most ladies etc the playability has to be explained in detail. They generally freak out the first few times they play an "ideally" firm and fast course and then I find they really get into it. First of all we have to remember that hardly any American golfers know how to play firm and fast---eg they've never used the necessary shots.

That's just the "playability". Transitioning a course from years of over-irrigation to the firm and fast "look" is obviously even tricker with acceptance. You've just got to explain to them PRECISELY what the course is going to LOOK like during the TRANSITION which may take 2-5 years and that they just have to commit to it and not freak out in the interim.

I'd even go so far as to show them photos of what it's going to look like during the transition and maybe what it should look like once the goal has been reached.

But I really do feel once a pretty fair slice (never all) of American golfers see it and play it a few times firm and fast "playability" will sell itself.

[TEPaul]

"Your super is only going to go so far or as far as the members or owners will let them in achieving firm and fast.

Tom Paul has it right when he talks of a grass roots campaign based on playability. That campaign needs to be lead by avid golfers and supported by industry professionals."

JohnG:

I'm beginning to find (probably unfortunately) that if you don't specifically define things and even quantify them most people don't know what you're talking about. And that included playability.

So what does "ideal" firm and fast PLAYABILITY mean to you---tee shots, approach areas, and greens? How would you define it and quantify it?

I'll tell you later how I do. I think this type of information has got to go to all members first.

[Tim Leahy]

My point for starting this thread was to point out what most of you already know and that is that ultimately the customer will dictate the end product. Your super is only going to go so far or as far as the members or owners will let them in achieving firm and fast.

Tom Paul has it right when he talks of a grass roots campaign based on playability. That campaign needs to be lead by avid golfers and supported by industry professionals.

I have played some great layouts that I won't go back to until they improve the conditions. Good grass on the fairways and consistent smooth greens can make an ordinary course a favorite. If I hit the fairway I want a good lie and if I'm on the green or in a trap I'd like a chance to get it close. I have played some great country clubs and thought my muni could be this good if it had better sand in the traps or smooth fairways and greens. I know volume of play counts but I have seen some busy muni's that put in the time and money to step up. I don't mind paying extra for it either.

[Gerry B]

my home course is always in spectacular shape so I am spoiled - but that being said -given the choice I will almost always choose layout and design over conditioning.

case in point - the 1st time I played Fishers Island -the course had been recently hit by a severe storm and was in poor condition. It is to this day  one of the finest 4 hours I have ever spent on a golf course. Felt the same when I played The Sheep Ranch.

Conversely - played English Turn one July morning -conditions were so bad that I quit after 9 holes - course was average at best and the poor conditions rendered it unplayable IMHO

[Wayne Freeman]

 I love great architecture above all else, but it definitely takes away from your overall enjoyment if conditioning is bad-  at the very least you need decent greens.  A couple of years ago in Providence, I played Triggs Memorial after playing Wannamoisett ( which was in pristine shape).   Triggs was in awful condition-  it's a very inexpensive muni now-  but the layout is terrific and I loved the experience.  So many great holes and variation-  it hosted a couple of major tournaments 70 years ago. I just took it for what it was,  but I don't think most average high index golfers would have had much appreciation for it.